- (1.) THE appellants were arrayed as A -1 and A -2 in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1993 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella. They have been charges under Section 302 read with 34, IPC which was framed against them with an allegation that at 8 a.m. on 17.8.1992, the second appellant Chaitan Pradhan @ Mangru Pradhan beat the deceased with a spade and that the first accused, Gobra Pradhan, who is the father of the second appellant, shared the common intention. The trial Judge finding the appellants guilty as charged, sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life and aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.
(2.) PW 3 Champa Pradhan is the wife of the deceased, Mahendra Pradhan. PW 1 Bharat Pradhan as the brother of the deceased. There was a dispute pending between the deceased and the appellants regarding a landed property and a civil suit was instituted at Seraikella. The suit was pending on the date of occurrence. On 17.8.1992 at about 8 a.m. the deceased Mahendra Pradhan, his wife, Champa Pradhan (PW 3} and his brother, Bharat Pradhan (PW 1} were irrigating the field. They were taking the water through the paddy field of the first appellant, Gobra Pradhan, who is the uncle of the deceased. Gobra Pradhan accompanied by his son, Chaitan Pradhan @ Mangru Pradhan arrived at the place and the second accused, Chaitan Pradhan was having a spade in his hand. They told the deceased that he should not take water through their field but the deceased insisted. At the time, the second appellant Chaitan Pradhan gave a blow with a spade which was in his hand and on receiving the said injury, Mahendra Pradhan fell down. He died thereafter. The occurrence was witnessed by PW 1 Bharat Pradhan and PW 3 Champa Pradhan, brother and wife of the deceased respectively. The fardbeyan, Ext. 3 was given by PW 3 on the basis of which a crime was registered. Ext. 4 is the formal FIR. The crime was taken up for investigation by PW 9, Bijay Kumar Singh, who conducted inquest by preparing inquest report, Ext. 5. A requisition was given to the doctor requesting him to conduct autopsy on the dead body.
(3.) ON receipt of the said requisition and the dead body, PW 4, Dr. Yogendra Nath conducted autopsy on the dead body and he found the following injuries : '' "i. 7 x 1 -1/2 c.m. x soft tissue over -left shoulder back; ii. 2 x 1 /4 c.m. x soft tissue over left ear pinna; iii. 3 x 1/2 c.m. x soft tissue over left temporal area just behind and close to the ear; iv. 4 x 2 cm. x bond deep over left temporal bone cutting the bone partially." The doctor issued Ext. 2, the postmortem certificate with his opinion that death is on account of the above injuries. ;